Re: Why Oracle don't have AUTO_INCREMENT as in MySQL

On 15 Apr 2007 01:12:05 -0700, "howa" <howachen_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4??15??, ?U??12??04??, "Fuzzy" <fuzzy.greybe..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 7:27 am, "howa" <howac..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?
>>
>> Seems SEQUENCE is very handy and natural. Why don't others implement
>> SEQUENCE?
>>
>> /Hans
>
>I can't agree SEQUENCE is more handy than AUTO_INCREMENT as you need
>to do the same thing by two statements.
>
>Also, in real world, use of AUTO_INCREMENT as primary key (e.g. id) is
>in fact, quite intuitive.
>

My, my, typing two statements instead of one! What a problem! SEQUENCE is quite handy, as it is allows for multiple, similar tables with ONE surrogate.
Also, in real world, AUTO_INCREMENT is equally artificial as SEQUENCE.

But if you want to stick to Mickeysoft products, and don't want to admit the Oracle solution is better, you are by all means invited to do so.

-- 
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA